By LISE OLSEN, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Published 10:00 pm, Friday, January 3, 2003

Forensic scientist Arnold Melnikoff, whose testimony in hundreds of criminal cases has been questioned after two men he helped to convict in Montana were exonerated by DNA, has denied through an attorney that he ever took a proficiency test to do similar work in Washington.

Melnikoff has been criticized for botching the examination of hair evidence in at least two cases in Montana in the 1980s and for exaggerating the significance of his findings in court testimony.

One of the two men he helped convict of rape charges who have been exonerated in Montana is suing the state. In the most recent exoneration, 35-year-old Jim Bromgard was released in October after spending more than a decade behind bars.

Melnikoff's testimony in hundreds of other cases is under review in Montana and Washington.

Melnikoff founded the Montana crime lab in 1970 and moved to Washington in 1989, where he has been a senior forensic scientist ever since.

Barry Logan, head of the Washington State Patrol's forensics division, recently told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that Melnikoff began a hair proficiency course in 1991 in Washington, but did not successfully complete it. He said results of proficiency testing for the course could not be located.

Melnikoff's attorney, Rocky Treppiedi of Spokane, told the P-I that the forensic scientist was supposed to be part of a team to set up a hair-testing program for this state in 1991. Treppiedi said Melnikoff began to take the course. But he said the project was abandoned, which is why Melnikoff did not complete the course.

Treppiedi said that when the State Patrol later chose to set up a hair-testing section in 1994, Melnikoff was not involved because by then he was too involved in drug case work.

Treppiedi said Melnikoff has never taken a hair proficiency test in Washington state, nor has he done any hair testing in this state.

"He has never taken such a test and the State Patrol has never assessed or criticized his ability to make hair comparisons, " Treppiedi said.

Logan could not be reached for comment.

Melnikoff is on administrative leave while state officials review his testimony in cases here. He has long worked as a chemist in Washington's Spokane crime lab, primarily testing drug samples and reviewing evidence confiscated at suspected methamphetamine labs. The comments issued through his attorney were his first about the ongoing controversy over his work.

Logan said the review has been slowed because the patrol has had trouble getting copies of transcripts with Melnikoff's testimony. Logan has said he believed that Melnikoff's testimony in the Montana cases was inappropriate and that the review here is focused on whether the scientist testified appropriately in drug cases in Washington.

Melnikoff is believed to have handled hundreds of cases in Washington and Montana. At the Montana drug lab, he hired and trained all of its initial employees before moving to Washington. He worked briefly in Kelso before moving to the Spokane lab. He has long served as a senior forensic scientist, but has never been a supervisor for Washington labs.

Treppiedi called the criticism of Melnikoff's 1980s-era forensic tests and testimony unfair.

"Twenty years later, they're looking at it differently," he said. "He was subject to cross-examination, he was subject to screening by a prosecutor and his testimony was considered by a judge. . . . When you look back with 20/20 hindsight and 20 years of additional scientific information it's unfair."